What a sad comment that a fake news show had to be the one to blow the whistle on another fake news program — that being Fox News’ Hannity, exposing its fraudulent manipulation of images in order to massively inflate the number of teabagging protesters attending Michele Bachman’s recent “house call” on Congress.

Hannity… what a complete douchebag. I wonder if he’ll apologize to his viewers for manipulating them? I wouldn’t hold my breath for that.

And interestingly, Fatprick is the dumb twat who thinks the Vimy Memorial is made out of concrete, can’t tell the difference between triangles and octagons, thinks that the McDonald-Cartier Highway was named for Jacques Cartier, and who wrote this:
“First off, a fetish is inherently sexual in nature. It doesn’t merely have to do with the “emotional experience” of sexuality, it has to do with sexual gratification. Period.Secondly, a fetish is with an inanimate object. ”

So I think you know what you can do with anything originating from Fatprick.

Seems to me that not only is lenny evidently losing track of the links he himself posted, not only is lenny evidently ignorant of matters related to psychology, but he’s just incredibly bitter that somebody’s calling MSNBC for being the new partisan suck-ups on the media block.

And when it becomes evident that he doesn’t actually have an argument, he just resorts back to insulting people — evidently not understanding that ad hominem attacks are not themselves arguments.

Which brings us back to that whole “Media Matters” thing. Which back here you were pretending you weren’t using as a source.

So not only do we know that you’re an idiot, we now also know you’re a dishonest one to boot.

Bravo.

And, by the way, I’d suggest that you learn to get your logical fallacies straight. The proper argument for you would have been to complain that I was using a “genetic fallacy”.

Of course then, we’d have to overlook the fact that my dismissal of Media Matters actually stems from a demonstration of their own obvious bias, and is thus extremely relevant to the topic at hand.

Whereas the genetic fallacy you tried to peddle — which, by the way, also demonstrates your ignorance of matters relating to psychology and, once again, that you’re a moron — holds no relevance to this topic of discussion at all.

But let’s face it, lenny. In the heart of every committed ideologue beats the heart of a petulant two-year-old. You never had any intention of arguing this like an adult from the very beginning.

Play time’s over, lenny. I’m going to give you the opportunity to bow down and back out quietly before I absolutely destroy you on this.

We have insulted you, Pats. That’s why you’re here over-reacting and being a obstreperous pest.

You’re the easiest person in the World to insult. One just has to look at you cross-eyed and you go rampaging throughout cyberspace defending yourself on positions that are largely indefensible, an exercise in which you are, sadly, entirely unskilled.

Yawn. So, I suppose Ti wants to share in the spanking. I’m extremely cool with that.

No, Ti, the reason why you clowns toss insults is because it’s all you’re capable of. You don’t have an argument, and you know it.

People can say what they will about Fox News — god knows they will, and I have no objection whatsoever to it.

But let’s take a look at what’s on the table here thus far:

We have MSNBC strategically editing footage of a black man with an AR-15 assault rifle so Contessa Brewer can imply that a racially-motivated assassination attempt on the President, by white people, is imminent.

What you’ve learned to date is that attempting to use ideology to force a weak argument doesn’t work.

What does this mean, he asked, sweetly?

You might consider yourself to be the great non-ideologue of the cybersphere, Patsy, but unfortunately, you don’t have the intellectual honesty (let alone the intellectual vigour) to pull it off. You’re just flailing.

but we both know I’ve trounced you far too often for you to justify that fantasy.

Don’t try to make me laugh, Patsy. I’ve got real people who do that for me.

I consider myself one of the few people you pester who’s refused to even begin to take your arguments seriously. And not because you may or may not have a point, but because you’re just a such a bad writer. Unfocused, hyperactive, incapable of summary and synthesis, humourless and dull.

But then again, this would be your other tactic you tend to fall back on — when losing, make everything intensely personal, so everyone forgets about the fact that you’re losing an argument.

So let’s go back to the argument, mostly because it’s so fun to watch you lose.

MSNBC has settled nicely into Fox News’ old role as sycophants for the President. So much so that they’re willing to conceal the race of a gun-toting man so they can use it for the purpose of race-baiting.

Organizations like Media Matters — which, in particular, received funding from the Hillary Clinton campaign — and the Huffington Post have proven to be convenient ideological enablers for MSNBC.

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann recently had a private meeting with President Obama.

Well, now that’s something substantive on which we might agree. I find the cosiness between American journalists and the administrations to be troubling. It’s the shameless of it that is particularly galling. At least in Canada, our journalistic class has the grace to at least pretend to be embarrassed when caught out. And they take the accusation of being too chummy with power quite seriously.

Bottom line, though, Pats…I expect that these people would own up to their mistakes and issue corrections/apologies/retractions without dissembling sooner than I would anyone associated with FoxNews.

The memos all came from Fox News. The completely fictitious “Paris Business Review” and the fraudulent figures it was purported to support, came from Fox News. The altered photos came from Fox News. The apology for rallying teabaggers came from Fox News. The assertion the Obama hates white people comes from Fox News.
You can find links to those things from any number of web pages, though there’s no need to.

And they put the lie to your claim that :”…(MSNBC) upped the ante for journalistic dishonesty.”

It’s only natural that Fox News would want to match them.”

You can hurl ad hominems and move the goalposts all over the place, but its pretty simple, Fatprick.

For example, when caught peddling a lie of omission in regards to the race of a man with an AR-15 assault rifle at a Presidential townhall, MSNBC attempted to defend themselves by claiming they were addressing a “broader issue”.

This was despite the fact that the footage they used under the pretenses of being evidence that people showing up to the meeting with guns (and even Greg Gutfeld, far from one of the bright lights of the media world agrees that this act itself is actually extremely stupid) supported their insinuation that a racially-motivated assassination attempt was imminent.

MSNBC’s crass exploitation of the very topic of racism has been a textbook case of how low a partisan media outlet can be willing to stoop in order to meet their own ideological ends.

At this point no rational individual should be able to so much as hear the words “Janeane Garofalo” without having to repress a smirk.

I’ll tell you what: why don’t you go dig up an example of Fox News making up a racially-charged story, then get back to me.

Now on that note, Ti, isn’t it funny that you would accuse me of being MariaS when it turns out that you yourself are MariaS?

I find that hilarious.

And as to the picture, Ti, absolutely yes. I volunteer my time in support of an organization that helps feed the hungry and needy. That you seem to think I should be embarrassed about that speaks volumes about you, and says very little about me.

The difference being that, unlike you, I never really lied about it in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that mine actually accomplished a goal. It must be pretty hard to swallow the fact that your cohorts in the Hateful Left are more than willing to accept the idea that one of their own would utter a racist epithet as easily as liberal supporter did.

And after this little episode, Ti, how are we to know you yourself aren’t liberal supporter? Or Sparky?

The viciousness-in-defiance-of-substance style that characterizes people like yourself has long run together in the minds of a lot of people. Moreover, you seem like the kind of loser who would pull a stunt like that.

Not that this really changes much of anything for you. Not only does this little episode just remind everyone what an unrepentant little liar you are, but it just reminds us what a miserly little piece of scum you are.

You are one of the few tiny individuals who would try to make somebody embarrassed at having supported a charity that that helps prevent people from starving. Moreover, you’re one of the few people who would try to do that to cover up the fact that he had just lost a debate, and lost it rather badly.

Well, Ti, I actually rather enjoy disappointing you. No, I’m not embarrassed by my contributions to my community. And you still lost this debate, long before you ever capitulated.

Media Matters is a useful reference corrective to Fox and right-wing talk radio. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t have a blind spot when it comes to biased missteps by so-called “liberal” media. For that, there are outfits like the Media Research Center.

Comparing the two is probably a mug’s game as they’re both quite selective in their approach, but I tend to find MRC’s work more predisposed to injecting their own ideological prejudice into their work than is the case with MM.

To dismiss the work of one (or both) in its entirety as PR did however, is a pretty obtuse approach.

“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

Ugh, are you forcing me to sit through John Gibson… (Kind of the equivalent to saying: “Here, smell my farts!”)

Good luck allying yourself with him, Patrick. Enjoy his War on Christmas… A fine tome!

But to your “point” — it’s hardly given from that execrable bit of audio that the Dems or Hillary Clinton were “central” to the founding of Media Matters. Or did I miss something? I believe she claimed (and you know how reliable HRC’s “claims” are…) that she “helped” in setting up groups such as MM.

I’ll summarize the video for you if you don’t want to watch it: John Gibson noted on one of his radio shows that Hillary Clinton had helped to create, and that she also funded, Media Matters. Media Matters David Brock denounced that claim as “knowingly false”.

But what Brock apparently didn’t contend with was recordings of Hillary Clinton’s comments at a Daily Kos convention in which she talked about her role in founding and funding Media Matters. Gibson plays this recording in this segment.

Now I’m not sure what you think The War on Christmas has to do with any of that. As Gibson’s book is irrelevant to the subject matter of this video, I’d say we have to chalk that one up as a genetic fallacy.

If you want to accuse me of twisting or distorting facts, I’d strongly suggest you ante up and try to prove it.

It can go on forever, as we all know. I’m so tempted to take on the glaring weakness in this latest accusation of “liberal conspiracy” addressed in that clip with the execrable John Gibson, but I know it will be pointless. Patrick will just move the goal-posts.

It’s never so much the issue itself, with me. Hillary Clinton could very well have started Media Matters for all I care. It’s how the wingnuts make formulate their arguments and defend their positions. It’s all so morally and intellectually bankrupt.